Monday, January 28, 2008

Radical Islam Continues To Spread

There are some very disturbing developments in the fight against radical Islamization.  The 2008 election will be critical in that fight, as the new President will either continue Bush's efforts of taking the fight to the terrorists, or sit back and let Islamic forces surround us in the name of multiculturalism.

First, a small bit of good news.  Plaintiffs who sued for Constitutional protections while being held at Guantanamo Bay have lost their lawsuit:

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson of U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington wrote that the religious freedom act does not apply to the Guantanamo detainees because they are not "persons" for the purposes of U.S law."

This is such a refreshing change to hear!  Too many activist judges have taken it upon themselves to re-write the law.  This judge, however, correctly interpreted the law as it was already stated, ruling that these prisoners of war are not guaranteed the same rights as American citizens.  Just to be clear, it's not that these terrorists are not "persons", but rather that they are not recognized as American citizens, and therefore do not get the same rights as you and I.

Though this particular case came out well, it is a disturbing signal of the latest weapon in the terrorists' arsenal: lawfare.  John Yoo is a lawyer who was sued by Jose Padilla, a man recently convicted of being a part of an Al Qaeda cell in America and trying to carry out a dirty bomb attack on a major American city.  He says:

I worked on the legality of the decision to place Padilla in the hands of military authorities in June 2002. The 9/11 attacks on our nation's capital and financial center, and the loss of 3,000 American lives, placed the United States at war with al-Qaeda, a fact that Padilla's lawyers do not accept. They have always asserted that Padilla could be considered only a criminal defendant and must enjoy the benefits of the civilian criminal-justice system.

They are wrong. Both the president and Congress have agreed that the United States is at war, and Congress passed an authorization for using force against any groups, nations or people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Capturing prisoners has been a permanent feature of war throughout human history; hundreds of thousands were detained during World War II alone. Sometimes, unfortunately, the enemy has included U.S. citizens - in the Civil War, every Confederate soldier was a citizen, and in World War II some Americans fought in the Axis armed forces. They never had a right to sue the soldiers who caught them.

Though Yoo has the means (and friends) to protect himself, he questions what has brought America to the point where an enemy combatant can sue the very military personnel who defeated him on the battlefield, and warning that not everyone is in his fortunate position.  If Padilla's lawsuit (and others like it) succeed, Yoo predicts bad things will follow, saying:

[W]e will have a government that will avoid any and all risks, shun making any move that is not an exact repetition of locked-in procedure of 20th-century vintage, and keep plodding along the same path regardless of contemporary circumstances. These are exactly the conditions that make a nation susceptible to a surprise attack, whether a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11.

I've blogged about many of these problems before, but they're only getting worse.  Take, for example, how banks in Canada are being taken over by Muslims and then offering special programs to Muslim customers and implementing Sharia along the way.  This faulty understanding of the goals of Islamism and their methods (including lawfare and multiculturalism) reaches far and wide.  Even our own military is not immune.

Stephen Coughlin is a Major in the Army Reserves who was working as a civilian contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the Army's greatest expert on the Islamist ideology of our enemies.  He studied the Holy Land Foundation trial, including this chilling passage from a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum about its mission:

"The Ikwan['s]…work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

Based on his analysis of the Islamofascist roots and agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, Stephen Coughlin was given to warning his military audiences that it was no "moderate" organization. For example, he notes that one of the Ikhwan's most prominent leaders, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, has declared: "The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is an obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately."

In return for his verbal straight shooting, Hashem Islam, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England's point-man for the Pentagon outreach to the Muslim community and an admirer of (ISNA) [Islamic Society of North America, an organization designated by the Justice Department as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan)], apparently took exception to Coughlin's unvarnished look at radical Islam and the goals of those who practice it, and complained.  So, Coughlin's contract with the Defense Department has not been renewed.

That's right, an Islamic radical in our own government got our leading expert on radical Islam fired.

The story, and Hashem Islam's background, in particular, goes much deeper, and is worth a few minutes of your time to check out.

So, would the results really be that bad?  Aside from all my previous documentation on radical Islamists, here's a current and concrete example from the Netherlands, where Muslims have effectively taken over the political leadership of the country:

"You filthy idiot. WE ARE HERE TO STAY hahahahahahhahah DROP DEAD."  That's an email by a Dutch Labour Party politician to a constituent.

According to the Dutch news agency NIS News,

"Labour (PvdA) politician Bouchra Ismaili is refusing to resign. She is ignoring requests from her party to step down because she lied about signing a petition of the radical Muslim organisation Hizb Ut Tahrir."  That's the violence-promoting Islamist  party that has been banned in Germany "due to its extremist and anti-Semitic character."

A spokesman for the HUT group named Okay Pala explains their beliefs: "We do not agree with freedom of expression, as we reject democracy ... what you need is a big bomb attack!'

If you haven't read my Radical Islam Revealed series, take some time to do it.  The fight against radical Islam is the fight of our generation, and without the proper understanding of who we face and what they want -- not to mention what's at stake -- we will most certainly lose.

There's my two cents.

No comments: